Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T06:29:46.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the question of lexical regularity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Robert E. Beard
Robert E. Beard
Affiliation:
Bucknell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent article on the indivisibility of ‘words’ (Sampson, 1979), Geoffrey Sampson, in arguing against the semantic decomposition of ‘vocabulary items’, concludes with a claim against lexical decomposability of derived items such as Nixonite, etc. One can hardly take issue, I think, with his argument against the purely semantic decomposition of lexical primes; however, it does not follow from this that the lexicon is characterized by unproductive, irregular rules or a total absence thereof: …it seems factually untrue that rules of derivational morphology (such as the rule for forming nouns in -ite) can be assimilated to semantically regular, productive ‘rules of grammar’ such as the rule for pluralizing nouns; the former rules are typically not fully productive, and the meanings of the words produced are not in general predictable (46).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 1981 , pp. 31 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aronoff, M. (to appear). ‘Contextuals’. Lg.Google Scholar
Beard, R. (1976 a). A semantically based model of a generative lexical word-formation rule for Russian adjectives, Lg. 52. 108–120.Google Scholar
Beard, R. (1976 b). Once more on the analysis of ed-adjectives. JL 12. 155–157.Google Scholar
Beard, R. (1978). Derivations within derivations. In Birnbaum, H. (ed.), The American Contributions to the Eighth Congress of Slavists; Volume 1: Linguistics and Poetics. Columbus, O.: Slavica. 126–154.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Karcevskij, S. (1929). Du dualisme asymmetrique du signe linguistique. TCLP 1. 88–93.Google Scholar
Katz, J. (1964). Semantic theory and the meaning of Good. Journal of Philosophy 61. 739–766.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1958). Morfologičeskie nabijudenia nad slavjanskim skloneniem. American Contributions to the IV Inernational Congress of Slavists; Materials and Discussions, II: Linguistic Contributions. The Hague: Mouton. 127–156.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. & Siegel, M. (1978). A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. LI 9. 199–260.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. (1979). The indivisibility of words. JL 15. 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, W. C. (1978). Good intensions. JL 14. 83–88.Google Scholar