16.3402, Review: Morphology/Semantics: ?tekauer (2005)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-3402. Mon Nov 28 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.3402, Review: Morphology/Semantics: ?tekauer (2005)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Lindsay Butler <lindsay at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at dooley at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 23-Nov-2005
From: Niladri Dash < niladri at isical.ac.in >
Subject: Meaning Predictability in Word Formation 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:34:09
From: Niladri Dash < niladri at isical.ac.in >
Subject: Meaning Predictability in Word Formation 
 

AUTHOR: Stekauer, Pavol
TITLE: Meaning Predictability in Word Formation
SUBTITLE: Novel, context-free naming units
SERIES: Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 54
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2005
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-1148.html

PURPOSE OF THE BOOK

The purpose of the present book is to examine empirically the event of 
meaning predictability of novel naming units in the context of context-
free interpretation. The focus is mostly based on the side of listeners 
or readers (naming interpreters) in normal communication channel. 
That means, in a normal environment, the author wants to know how 
the listeners and readers are able to predict the meaning of newly 
coined naming units with close reference to their inherent knowledge 
base, and how that meaning is related with similar units available in 
the language.

CONTENT OF THE BOOK

Chapter 1: Literature Survey (Pp. 1- 42). It includes discussions on 
and evaluation of the morphological traditions framed by Lees (1960), 
Levi (1978), Lint (1982), Zimmer (1971), Downing (1977), and Allen 
(1978) and others. It also focuses critically on some of the basic 
psycholinguistic methods broadly classified into slot-filling models, 
relation models, analogy-based models, combined and other models, 
and non-compound interpretation models.

Chapter 2: General Word Formation Framework (Pp. 43-54). This 
chapter includes two broad areas: (a) onomasiological model of word 
formation, and (b) onomasiological types.

Chapter 3: A Theory of Predictability (Pp. 55-98). This chapter refers 
to various issues related with the present investigation. It discusses 
the event of context-free meaning of predictability, how predictability is 
interrelated with lexical meaning, conceptualization and extralinguistic 
knowledge, the process of meaning prediction, the interface 
underlying predictability and productivity, the interdependency of 
predictability and typicality of word meaning, etc.

Chapter 4: The Experiments (Pp. 99-240). This chapter describes in 
details the experiments undertaken by the author to observe the 
phenomenon and to establish his arguments derived from his 
experiments. The author has initiated four types of experiment, which 
are described and defined here along with the outputs of the studies.

Chapter 5: Conclusions (Pp. 241-263). This chapter summarizes the 
results of the experiments along with the final observations of the 
investigator. At least fifteen conclusions are drawn from the 
experiments to be presented here.

CRITICAL SYNOPSIS

In chapter 1 (pp. 1-42), the author systematically presents some 
critical and precise estimation on the previous researches directly or 
indirectly connected with the particular topic of meaning predictability 
in word formation, which is the central point of investigation of this 
book. In the course of his research and experiment, the author has to 
explore the views and arguments of the earlier scholars who have 
designed theories and principles for predicting meanings of the 
compounds. The author outlines a number of theories that account for 
the interpretation of compound words as either based on relation or 
slot-filling. In addition, he also refers to some models (e.g. proposed 
by Finin (1980) and Murphy (1988)), to combine slot-filling with the 
representation of relations between the modifier and the head.

The author, however, argues that a more adequate view of the 
process of word interpretation can be coined by examining the word-
formation processes existing in a language. Form the analysis 
presented in Chapter 2 and 3 the author shows that the basic 
structure that underlies the act of naming includes prototypical 
features of the motivating constituents. Eventually, these features 
establish the naming-defining relation(s) between the naming unit 
constituents. For instance, while Wisniewski (1996) distinguishes two 
different strategies for two different readings of box clock (one is 
property-mapping for square clock and the other is relation-linking for 
clock contained in box), the author proposes that both are 
interpretable as relations between compatible characteristic features 
(properties) of the objects involved: the former reading will base on 
similarity or pattern relation between the box and the clock, the latter 
meaning will base on location relation enabled by compatibility of 
features for box and clock.

In chapter 2 (pp. 43-54) the author presents a short outline on the 
principles of onomasiological approach to word formation as a 
theoretical framework to address the event of meaning predictability of 
novel, context-free naming units. According to the author there are 
two basic approaches to the study of word formation. One is related to 
word formation and word-formedness as proposed and elaborated by 
Stepanova (1973) and others, the other one is related to word 
formation and word analysis proposed and investigated by Aronoff 
(1976), Hansen (1978) and others. With a background described in 
the two approaches the onomasiological model for word formation 
proposed by author accounts for the formation of new naming units by 
way of concentrating on the dynamic facet of the phenomenon. For 
this goal, the author proposes five onomasiological types (p. 52), 
which are necessary to understand the phenomenon of meaning 
predictability of compounds. These types are:

Type I: All the onomasiological level constituents (i.e. the 
onomasiological base, the determined constituents, and the 
determining constituents) of the onomasiological mark are linguistically 
expressed here. E.g., truck driver, language teacher, brain-storming, 
air hostess, housing development, photo-sensor, sea-rover, etc.

Type II: The determined constituent of the onomasiological mark is 
expressed while the determining constituent is not. E.g., lock nut, 
sensing electrode, stop button, stop watch, etc.

Type III: The determined constituent of the onomasiological mark is left 
unexpressed. E.g., policeman, alpinist, honey bee, summer house, 
sun lamp, etc.

Type IV: The onomasiological mark cannot be analyzed into the 
determining and the determined parts. Therefore, naming units falling 
within this type distinguish only tow constituents, the onomasiological 
base and the onomasiological mark. E.g., blue-eyed, unhappy, restart, 
etc.

Type V: It stands for onomasiological recategorization, traditionally 
called conversion or zero-derivation.

In fact, the onomasiological approach to conversion is based on the 
fact that each naming unit results from an intellectual analysis of an 
extralinguistic object to be named. Within this analysis scheme the 
object is classed with one of the five above-mentioned conceptual 
categories. From the analysis and investigation presented in the 
chapter what we find is that new naming units do not come into 
existence in a vacuum or accidentally. There is always a demand on 
the part of a speech community to give a name to a new object, 
action, quality, emotion, or circumstance. Each naming process is 
conditioned and determined by the knowledge and experience of a 
particular person who first coins the naming unit (p. 43).

In chapter 3 (pp. 55-98), the author presents a general theory of 
predictability and its various aspects. He argues that the meaning 
predictability of all naming units within the onomasiological scheme is 
based on some principles, without which the traditional word formation 
process was not possible. Therefore, a unified theory of meaning 
predictability may be proposed, which is equally applicable to 
compounding and affixation. The author argues that a part of his 
model corresponds to what has been traditionally called conversion or 
zero-derivation, which needs to be modified to a certain extent to 
account for the features of onomasiological structure.

In essence, in this chapter, the author argues for a close interaction 
between the processes of word formation and word-interpretation; 
accounts for close interrelation among the extralinguistic reality, the 
conceptual level, and the linguistic level; emphasizes on the role of 
world knowledge and experience of a speaker in the process of 
meaning prediction; discusses the predicting capacity of both native 
and non-native speakers; emphasizes on the role of prototypical 
features of naming units; analyses the individual steps taken in the act 
of meaning prediction; provides a discussion on the predictability of 
converted naming units (including converted proper names); 
discusses the relation between meaning predictability and typicality; 
and finally, introduces two measures of meaning predictability: 
predictability rate and objectified predictability rate.

In chapter 4 (pp. 99-240) the author presents the results of four 
extensive experiments conducted by him to explore the act and nature 
of meaning predictability. The goal of the first two experiments is 
related to testing the methods of computing the predictability rate and 
the objectified predictability rate. This is also related to the evaluation 
of the correctness of the prediction concerning the key role of 
prototypical semes. Here, the author has also an intention to trace the 
interconnection between the linguistic and extralinguistic factors in 
various predictable readings of sample naming unit (p.99).

The goal of the third experiment is to examine critically the possible 
naming units that belong to the five different onomasiological types. 
Each type is represented here by two possible naming units. The 
primary objective is to apply the proposed method of calculation of 
objectified predictability rate to various types of naming units, and in 
this manner, to demonstrate the viability of the method of comparing 
the predictability of meanings of various naming units (p. 100).

The last experiment evaluates the predictability rates of those naming 
units, which do not comply with the productive principles of word 
formation. These units actually belong to the types, which are 
specified as unacceptable forms by various morphologists. Within the 
scheme of synchronic word formation, these forms violate various 
restrictions on productivity. The main objective of the author here is to 
relate the notion of predictability and productivity as well as to 
examine whether or not there is any interrelation and/or influence of 
productive word formation/morphological types upon the predictability 
rate of words. The chapter contains a number of tables, analysis and 
comments on the proposed readings of sample naming unit, and the 
circumstances affecting the predictability/unpredictability of individual 
naming unit readings. In addition, it examines the inherent relation 
underlying associative meanings and meaning predictability.

In chapter 5 (pp. 241-263) the author resumes the individual issues 
discussed in chapter 3 in view of the results obtained from the 
experimental research in order to arrive at relevant conclusions. To 
establish his arguments the author categorically makes the following 
conclusion in sequential order:

Conclusion 1: Both native and non-native speakers have an equal 
amount meaning-prediction capacity. Virtually, there is no notable line 
of distinction (p. 245).

Conclusion 2: There is no place for the term correct reading in a 
theory of meaning predictability. Any naming unit is potentially fit for 
reading of multiple types, which can neither tagged as correct nor as 
wrong (p. 246).

Conclusion 3: There is an obvious tendency for the predictable 
readings to be motivated by prototypical semes or their combinations, 
which may reflect on the prototypical features of relevant objects (p. 
246).

Conclusion 4: Extralinguistic knowledge and experience of an 
individual play a crucial role in the whole process of meaning 
predictability (p. 249).

Conclusion 5: In the actual act of meaning prediction people normally 
have a preference for stable relationships over fortuitous ones of the 
naming units (p. 251)

Conclusion 6: The act of meaning predictability is often influenced by 
the productivity of onomasiological types, word formation types, and 
morphological types (p. 253).

Conclusion 7: Word formation process and meaning predictability is 
closely interfaced. Thus, the prediction of meaning of new naming 
units is often monitored by the process of their formation (p. 254).

Conclusion 8: The onomasiological type and the predictability rate are 
also interrelated with meaning predictability of naming units (p. 255). 
These are also interdependent in the act of naming.

Conclusion 9: The objectified parameter of meaning predictability 
primarily depends on several mutually interrelated variables (p. 256).

Conclusion 10: While there are many potential readings of novel, 
context-free naming units, it is usually only one or two readings that 
are significant in terms of meaning predictability (p. 257).

Conclusion 11: The percentage of single occurrences among the 
proposed readings is fairly high with respect to other readings (p. 257).

Conclusion 12: In majority of cases, the templates are insufficient to 
recognize the subtle shades of individual readings of the naming units 
(p. 258).

Conclusion 13:  While there are some cases of overlap between 
associates and predictable readings, this relation is far from being 
systematic (pp. 259).

Conclusion 14: The analysis of the sample-naming units indicates that 
there is no single factor conditioning the predictability of novel, context-
free naming units. On the contrary, there lies an inter-play of several 
factors conditioning the meaning predictability of novel, context-free 
naming units (pp. 259).

Conclusion 15: Given these factors, it is possible to identify an 
optimum situation for meaning predictability of novel, context-free 
naming units as well as the factors, which reduce their meaning 
predictability.

DISCUSSION

The onomasiological theory outlined in this volume and applied to 
certain specific problems and experiments of word formation in a 
series of articles of the present author is an attempt to describe all 
productive word formation processes using one common mechanism. 
It emphasizes the triadic aspect of word formation existing between 
the extralinguistic reality (i.e. the objects to be named), speech 
community (i.e. the name coiner), and word formation (i.e. the process 
of neologism) in order to emphasize the active role and cognitive 
capacity of a coiner. At the same time this theory establishes a 
framework for the treatment of the individual word formation 
processes on a common basis.

The theory assumes that the process of naming units do not come into 
existence in isolation. Rather, it is resulted from the process of 
proportional unification of various factors such as present needs, 
need-filling motives, word formation rules and techniques functional in 
a language, human knowledge, human cognitive abilities, 
experiences, discoveries of new things, processes and qualities, 
human imagination, world knowledge, etc. That means, when an 
object to be named is not named on its own but is envisaged and 
constructed in relation to the existing objects and concepts. Thus, the 
structural relationships in the lexicon are preceded (or dominated) by 
a network of objective relationships, which, should be taken into 
serious consideration in the process of naming of units (p. 44).

What we understand from the discussion presented in chapter two 
and three is that the predictability of meaning of naming units highly 
correlates with the acceptability of such meanings to the interpreters. 
Since there is no clear-cut boundary between acceptable and 
unacceptable meanings, the predictability of meanings of naming units 
is a cline. An important condition for meaning predictability is a 
combination of prototypical semantic components as a linguistic 
representation of logical predicates reflecting the prototypical features 
of the objects named. The predictability of meanings of any naming 
unit heavily relies on the conceptual level analysis, on the cognitive 
abilities of language users (i.e. supralinguistic level) - the principles of 
which are identical to mankind as a whole. Form this point of view, the 
results obtained from the native speakers should not differ significantly 
from those of the second language speakers.

Moreover, the meaning prediction process is significantly influenced 
by extralinguistic knowledge and experiences of language users. 
Given a more or less homogenous group of informants, living in similar 
cultural settings, the results should not be negatively influenced by 
their belonging to different speech communities (p. 98). In general, 
any theory designed for interpreting the meaning of compounds 
should consider seriously and reflect on number of factors such as 
word formation factor, the relation between the morphological and the 
semantic structures, the underlying morphological type, the word 
formation type, and competition between the various possible 
readings (p. 42).

In essence, the main focus of the present volume is a discussion of 
the various factors affecting and conditioning predictability, such as 
world knowledge and experiences, the level of semantic components 
(semes), onomasilogical types, the internal semantic structure of a 
word formation type and the role of the related onomasiological 
structure rules, inherence of features, linguistic expression of the 
actional constituent of the onomasiological structure, the productivity 
of word formation types and morphological types, and associative 
meanings. Additionally, emphasis is placed on the verification of 
theoretical considerations by practical research, including four 
experiments with native and non-native speakers.

The goal of the investigation was four-fold: (a) to develop a theory of 
the meaning-predictability of context-free novel naming units as an 
integral part of a general onomasiological theory of word formation; 
(b) to identify the factors that influence the meaning-prediction 
process either positively or negatively; (c) to propose a method of 
calculating the predictability rate and the objectified predictability rate; 
and (d) to verify the theoretical considerations and hypotheses in an 
experimental research, by applying the proposed method to the whole 
range of potential and non-established naming units within five 
onomasiological types. The academic contribution of the present work 
lies in its application of a new approach that aims at paving new 
avenues for exploring one of the most intriguing areas of semantic 
predictability of the context-free lexical items in a language.

REFERENCES

Allen, Margaret R. (1978) Morphological Investigations. Doctoral 
Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

Aronoff, Mark (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar. 
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Downing, Pamela (1977) On the Creation and Use of English 
Compound Nouns. Language. 4: 810-842.

Finin, Timothy W. (1980) The Semantic Interpretation of Compound 
Nominals. Urbana: University of Illinois, Coordinated Science 
Laboratory, Report T-96.

Hansen, Klaus (1978) Problems in the Semantic Analysis of 
Compounds. Zeitschrift fur Anglistik und Amerikanistik. 26: 247-251.

Lees, Robert B. (1960) The Grammar of English Nominalizations. 
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Levi, Judith N. (1978) The Syntax and Semantics of Complex 
Nominals. New York: Academic Press.

Lint, van Trudeke (1982) The Interpretation of Compound Nouns. In, 
Daalder, S. and M. Gerritsen (Eds.) Linguistics in Netherlands 1982. 
Pp. 135-145. Amsterdam/Oxford: North-Holland.

Murphy, Gregory L. (1988) Comprehending Complex Concepts. 
Cognitive Science. 12: 529-562.

Stepanova, Maria D. (1973) Methoden der Synchronen 
Wortschatzanalyse. Munchen: Max Hueber.

Wisniewski, Edward J. (1996) Construal and similarity in conceptual 
combination. Journal of Memory and Language. 35: 424-453.

Zimmer, Karl E. (1971) Some general Observations about Nominal 
Compounds. Working papers on Language Universals. Stanford 
University 5: 1-21. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Dr. Niladri Sekhar Dash works in the area of corpus linguistics and 
corpus-based language research and application in the Linguistic 
Research Unit of the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India. His 
research interest includes corpus linguistics, language technology, 
natural language processing, lexicography, lexicology, and lexical 
semantics. His recent book (Corpus Linguistics and Language 
Technology, New Delhi: Mittal Publications, 2005) has addressed, 
besides other things of corpus linguistics, the issues of corpus-based 
linguistic research and application both in mainstream linguistics and 
language technology in Indian languages. Presently he is working on 
text corpus processing, corpus-based electronic dictionary building, 
lexical polysemy, word-sense disambiguation, and corpus-based 
machine translation in Indian languages.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-3402