Pius ten Hacken

Ten Hacken and Panocov present a systematic overview of how different current morphological theories account for the naming function of word formation. Naming is an essential preliminary step for the effective use of language. In most linguistic theories, word formation is covered as a part of morphology. However, morphological theories, especially those in generative linguistics, tend to focus on the form and structure of words, rather than on their naming function. As a result, it is often not made explicit how naming is accounted for. In this book, the authors cover new ground in describing and comparing theories from this perspective. They highlight the relevance of the naming perspective in both generative and functionalist approaches and in doing so challenge the way morphological theories are received and developed. The authors develop a framework for identifying which aspects of naming have been or can be covered in each theory and evaluate the success of the resulting account. The results of this comparison can be used for the selection of theories in research and teaching.

Ten Hacken and Panocova present a systematic overview of how different current morphological theories account for the naming function of word formation. Naming is an essential preliminary step for the effective use of language. In most linguistic theories, word formation is covered as a part of morphology. However, morphological theories, especially those in generative linguistics, tend to focus on the form and structure of words, rather than on their naming function. As a result, it is often not made explicit how naming is accounted for. In this book, the authors cover new ground in describing and comparing theories from this perspective. They highlight the relevance of the naming perspective in both generative and functionalist approaches and in doing so challenge the way morphological theories are received and developed. The authors develop a framework for identifying which aspects of naming have been or can be covered in each theory and evaluate the success of the resulting account. The results of this comparison can be used for the selection of theories in research and teaching.

This book aims to reconcile the generative considerations of Jackendoff’s Parallel Architecture (PA) with the European structuralist approach to naming. It shows that there are good reasons to single out word formation as a separate component in PA. It demonstrates that it is a drawback not to distinguish word formation, and explains that the function of word formation rules is different from the function of the lexicon and rules of grammar. After making the argument for a separate word formation component, the book sets out to determine which types of rule qualify as part of this component. Traditionally, the boundaries of word formation with inflection and with syntax have been a matter of debate. By focusing on the naming function, the book poses a guiding principle for determining which rules should be in the word formation component. The position of morphology in the architecture of grammar has always been an issue of debate in generative linguistics. Since Chomsky (1970), thisquestion has been framed in terms of the Lexicalist Hypothesis. Compared to Chomsky’s architectures, Jackendoff’s Parallel Architecture places phonetic and conceptual structures at the same level as syntactic structure, i.e. connected by bidirectional linking rules rather than interpretation rules. One of the consequences is that PA does not formally distinguish lexicon entries from rules of grammar. This changes the setting for the question of the autonomy of morphology, because the Lexicalist Hypothesis depends on this distinction.

This is an innovative approach to word formation and lexicalisation. In the study of word formation, the focus has often been on generating the form. In this book, the semantic aspect of the formation of new words is central. It is viewed from the perspectives of word formation rules and of lexicalization. An extensive introduction gives a historical overview of the study of the semantics of word formation and lexicalization, explaining how the different theoretical frameworks used in the contributions relate to each other. Each chapter then concentrates on a specific question about a theoretical concept or a word formation process in a particular language and adopts a theoretical framework that is appropriate to the study of this question. From general theoretical concepts of productivity and lexicalization, the focus moves to terminology, compounding, and derivation. Theoretical Framewords discussed include: Jackendoff's Conceptual Structure; Langacker's Cognitive Grammar; Lieber's lexical semantic approach to word formation; Pustejovsky's Generative Lexicon; Beard's Lexeme-Morpheme-Base Morphology; and, the onomasiological approach to terminology and word formation.

This work explains Chomskyan linguistics in an accessible and balanced way. It takes objections that have been made to the assumptions in the research programme seriously and explains why these assumptions can and should be made. It explains the differences between Chomskyan linguistics and its main competitors without bias. This will help the reader to understand research articles in different frameworks. It shows how areas of linguistics that are not central to Chomskyan linguistics can be incorporated within this framework. Noam Chomsky is not only one of the most influential, but also one of the most controversial figures in 20th century linguistics. In view of the polarization of opinions on Chomsky, giving a balanced account of Chomskyan linguistics is an ambitious venture. The approach chosen here is to describe both Chomskyan linguistics and the positions defended by its opponents in terms of research programmes. A research programme consists of a number of assumptions on what language is and how it should be studied. Only by assuming that research programmes adopted by a large number of scholars for a prolonged period have to be rational, coherent systems can we hope to fully understand the nature of the conflicts between them. After a general discussion of the notion of research programme, it is shown how the various stages of Chomskyan theory can be analysed as belonging to a single, coherent research programme. This research programme is then compared to the ones for Post-Bloomfieldian linguistics, Lexical-Functional Grammar, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar and Montague Grammar, and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Finally the relevance of the research programme of Chomskyan linguistics for the practical study of the acquisition, change, and use of language is addressed.

Noam Chomsky is not only one of the most influential, but also one of the most controversial figures in 20th century linguistics. In view of the polarization of opinions on Chomsky, giving a balanced account of Chomskyan linguistics is an ambitious venture. The approach chosen here is to describe both Chomskyan linguistics and the positions defended by its opponents in terms of research programmes. A research programme consists of a number of assumptions on what language is and how it should be studied. Only by assuming that research programmes adopted by a large number of scholars for a prolonged period have to be rational, coherent systems can we hope to fully understand the nature of the conflicts between them. After a general discussion of the notion of research programme, it is shown how the various stages of Chomskyan theory can be analysed as belonging to a single, coherent research programme. This research programme is then compared to the ones for Post-Bloomfieldian linguistics, Lexical-Functional Grammar, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar and Montague Grammar, and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Finally the relevance of the research programme of Chomskyan linguistics for the practical study of the acquisition, change, and use of language is addressed.