Word Formation in Parallel Architecture: The Case for a Separate Component

105 Pages·2019·2.084 MB·English

by  Pius ten Hacken

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN LINGUISTICS
Pius ten Hacken
Word Formation
in Parallel
Architecture
The Case for
a Separate
Component
123
SpringerBriefs in Linguistics
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11940
Pius ten Hacken
Word Formation in Parallel
Architecture
The Case for a Separate Component
123
Pius ten Hacken
Institut für Translationswissenschaft
Leopold-Franzens-UniversitätInnsbruck
Innsbruck, Austria
ISSN 2197-0009 ISSN 2197-0017 (electronic)
SpringerBriefs inLinguistics
ISBN978-3-030-18008-9 ISBN978-3-030-18009-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18009-6
©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicencetoSpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2019
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythePublisher,whether
thewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseof
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmissionorinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilar
ordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregard
tojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 The Mental Lexicon in Jackendoff’s Parallel Architecture . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 The Parallel Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 The Lexicon and Linguistic Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 The Entries of the Lexicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4 Meaning and Form in the Lexicon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3 Morphology in Jackendoff’s Parallel Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1 Morphological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2 Jackendoff’s Approach to Morphemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.3 Jackendoff’s Approach to Inflection and Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.4 Jackendoff’s Approach to Compounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.5 The Place of Morphology in the Grammar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4 Productivity and Onomasiological Coercion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.1 Schultink’s (1961) and Corbin’s (1987) Analyses
of Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.2 Jackendoff’s Notions of Productivity and Semiproductivity . . . . . . 53
4.3 Processing Efficiency and Onomasiological Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.4 Two Routes to Lexical Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5 The Boundaries of Word Formation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.1 Word Formation Rules as Operations on Lexical Entries. . . . . . . . 69
5.2 The Boundary Between Inflection and Derivation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
v
vi Contents
5.3 The Boundary Between Compounding and Syntax. . . . . . . . . . . . 82
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6 The Word Formation Component in PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Chapter 1
Introduction
Thisbookisaboutwordformation.Inthehistoryoflinguistics,wordformationhas
beenconsideredfromvariousperspectives.Animportantdistinctionthatcanbemade
inclassifyingtheseperspectivesistheonebetweentheAmericanandtheEuropean
tradition. In the American tradition, word formation rules are rules for combining
morphemesintowords.IntheEuropeantradition,wordformationrulesarerulesfor
producing new words as names for new concepts. These two perspectives are not
necessarilyinconflictwitheachother,buttheyputanemphasisondifferentaspects
ofwordformation.1
ThedistinctionbetweenAmericanandEuropeantraditionsinlinguisticsisusu-
allynotfocusedonwordformation.Amoretypicaldistinctivefeatureistheattitude
tosemantics.IntheEuropeantradition,Saussure’s(1916)ideaofthesigneconsist-
ing of a formpart and a meaning part has been central. Inthe American tradition,
Bloomfield’s(1933)ideatofocusontheformalsideoflanguagebecausethemean-
ingislessdirectlyaccessibleremainedinfluential.AlthoughBloomfield’srejection
ofmentalaspectsoflanguageasaproperobjectforscientificstudywasoverturned
by Chomsky’s (1965) explicit statement that competence should be the object of
study,thefocusonformratherthanmeaningwasnotaffected.
In Jackendoff’s (2002) Parallel Architecture (PA), we have a rare example of
a theory of language in the American tradition of linguistics which grew out of a
theory of semantics. Most earlier theoretical approaches in the American tradition
eitherstartedfromphonology(e.g.Hockett1954,Harris1951)orfromsyntax(as
Chomsky’sframeworksdo).2Afurtherremarkablefeatureisthat,althoughsemantics
1Here,IusethelabelsAmericanandEuropeannotinapurelygeographicsense,butratherascultural
concepts,alongthelinesarguedforbyJoseph(2002:47–70).Americanlinguisticsincludesthework
ofBloomfield,thePost-Bloomfieldiansandgenerativegrammar.Europeanlinguisticsincludesthe
workofSaussure,thePragueSchool,etc.
2Approaches such as Langacker (1987) are American in the geographic sense, but at least not
typicaloftheculturalsense.WhereasJackendoffadherestomostifnotallofthemainassumptions
associatedwithgenerativegrammar,Langackerrejectsmanyofthem.
©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicencetoSpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2019 1
P.tenHacken,WordFormationinParallelArchitecture,
SpringerBriefsinLinguistics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18009-6_1
2 1 Introduction
ishistoricallycentralinthedevelopmentofPA,itisnotthesinglestartingpoint.The
paralleltreatmentofsemanticswithsyntaxandphonologymakesPAagoodstarting
pointforbridgingthegapbetweentheEuropeanandAmericantraditions.
Fromthisperspective,IwilldiscussthepositionofwordformationinPA.Despite
themoreopenarchitecture,Jackendoff’sapproachtowordformationissquarelyin
theAmericantradition.IwillarguethattherearegoodreasonstomodifyPAsoas
tohaveaseparatewordformationcomponent.
Jackendoff(2002)presentsPAasthebasisforatheoryofmanyaspectsoflan-
guage,rangingfromlanguageprocessingtolanguageacquisitionandtheemergence
of language in evolution. Other publications elaborate further aspects. Here, I will
focus on those aspects of PA that are involved in word formation. First, Chap. 2
presents the mental lexicon and Chap. 3 the treatment of morphology. Although
thesechaptersfollowJackendoff’sreasoning,theydonotreplicatehiswritings.By
presentingmyunderstandingofPA,Imakethegeneralargumentself-containedand
preparethecaseforaseparatewordformationcomponentinChaps.4and5.
InChap.4,Iaddresstwoaspectsofthenamingfunctionofwordformationthat
are central in the argument why word formation is special. They concern the type
ofproductivity ofwordformationrulesandthewaythemeanings oftheresulting
wordsemerge.Then,Chap.5explorestheconsequencesofthereasoningmotivating
theseparatewordformationcomponentforthedecisionwhichrulesshouldbepart
ofit.Finally,Chap.6presentsthemodifiedversionofPA.
Thisbookhasbeenalongtimeinthemaking.Thematerialpresentedinitwas
originally intended as a part of a larger monograph, which I started writing while
stillworkingatSwanseaUniversity.Inthecourseofwriting,Idiscoveredproblems
that upset the original structure to such an extent that I did not complete it. I am
gratefultoHelenAristar-Dryforsettingupthisseriesandgivingmetheopportunity
toreworkthematerialinthisbookforpublicationasashortmonograph.Iwouldlike
tothankMariaBloch-Trojnar,RenátaPanocová,AndrewRothwell,ClaireThomas
andtwoanonymousreviewersforcommentsonearlierversions.Needlesstosay,I
amsolelyresponsibleforanyremainingerrors.
References
Bloomfield,Leonard.1933.Language.London:Allen&Unwin.
Chomsky,Noam.1965.AspectsoftheTheoryofSyntax.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Harris,ZelligS.1951.MethodsinStructuralLinguistics.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,
(repr.asStructuralLinguistics,1960).
Hockett,CharlesF.1954.TwoModelsofGrammaticalDescription.Word10:210–231.
Jackendoff,Ray.2002.FoundationsofLanguage:Brain,Meaning,Grammar,Evolution.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Joseph, John. 2002. From Whitney to Chomsky: Essays in the history of American linguistics.
Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Langacker,RonaldW.1987.FoundationsofCognitiveGrammar:Vol.1,TheoreticalPrerequisites,
StanfordCA:StanfordUniversityPress.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. ed. Charles Bally and Albert
Sechehaye.ÉditioncritiquepréparéeparTulliodeMauro,Paris:Payot,1981.
Chapter 2
The Mental Lexicon in Jackendoff’s
Parallel Architecture
Jackendoff (2002) presents Parallel Architecture (PA) as a model of language and
elaborates how it can be applied to a range of different areas in linguistics. The
historicalbackgroundofPAanditsrelationtotheresearchprogrammeofChomskyan
linguisticsareaddressedintenHacken(2007:245–67).Inthischapter,Iwillpresent
thepositionofthementallexiconinthismodel.First,Sect.2.1givesabriefgeneral
overviewofPA.InSect.2.2,IturntothestatusofthelexiconinPA,showinghow
PAaccountsforlanguageasacomponentofthespeaker’smindandasanexpression
usedinaparticularcontext.Then,Sect.2.3turnstothequestionoflexiconentries,i.e.
whattypesofinformationmustbestoredintheseentriesandwhatkindofexpressions
theyrepresent.Finally,Sect.2.4addressesthenatureoftherepresentationofform
andmeaninginthementallexicon.
In illustrating the various points to be made, I will use examples from Dutch
andsometimesotherlanguages.Theadvantageofusingexamplesfromlanguages
otherthanEnglishisthatthiscreatesacleardistinctionbetweentheobjectlanguage
andthelanguageusedinthepresentationanddiscussion.InpresentingJackendoff’s
framework, this is particularly relevant, because many expressions of the formal-
ismaretakenfromEnglish,buttheyshouldnotbeinterpretedasequivalenttothe
correspondingEnglishwords.
2.1 TheParallelArchitecture
Inthecommon-senseperceptionofwhatconstitutesalanguage,wordsarecentral.
WordsarealsothestartingpointforthetheoryoflanguagedevelopedbyFerdinand
deSaussure,whichinitsposthumousform(1916)isoftentakentobeaoreventhe
landmarkintheearlydevelopmentofmodernlinguistics.
In Saussure’s theory, words are represented as signes (‘signs’). As an example,
Fig.2.1isarepresentationoftheDutchwordkaas(‘cheese’).
©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicencetoSpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2019 3
P.tenHacken,WordFormationinParallelArchitecture,
SpringerBriefsinLinguistics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18009-6_2