Niels O. Schiller and Rinus G. Verdonschot
This chapter describes how speakers access words from the mental lexicon. Lexical access is a crucial component in the process of transforming thoughts into speech. Some theories consider lexical access to be strictly serial and discrete, while others view this process as being cascading or even interactive, i.e. the different sub-levels influence each other. We discuss some of the evidence in favour and against these viewpoints, and also present arguments regarding the ongoing debate on how words are selected for production. Another important issue concerns the access to morphologically complex words such as derived and inflected words, as well as compounds. Are these accessed as whole entities from the mental lexicon or are the parts assembled online? This chapter tries to provide an answer to that question as well.
Pauliina Saarinen and Jennifer Hay
This chapter concerns factors influencing the order in which derivational affixes may attach to a word and reviews proposals that have been made to account for affix ordering in the world’s languages. There are a variety of factors which appear to influence affix-ordering each of which can be observed across multiple languages. However, as argued by Manova and Aronoff (2010), while there are observable cross-linguistic tendencies, there is certainly no existing recipe of factors that can be shown to dictate all languages’ affix-ordering behaviurs. The object of study is inherently different across different languages due to the frequency and productivity distributions of the affixes, the semantic notions expressed by them, the factors that lend themselves to parsing affixes in speech perception, the statistical (ir)regularities, and the degree of semantic and phonological transparency. Different languages their own solutions to the problem of balancing these tensions and establishing an “optimal” affix order.
The main characteristics of bilingual dictionaries are identified and described. The history and development of this genre of dictionary is sketched and analysed. Current issues confronting this kind of dictionary are identified. After briefly describing the origin of bilingual dictionaries, this chapter focuses on the four major functions of these dictionaries as well as on the significant changes bilingual lexicography has undergone over the last twenty years. It also describes some of the hot topics that are currently debated in lexicography circles today.
John N. Williams
Psycholinguistic research provides a wealth of evidence that when performing tasks in one language bilinguals and proficient second language learners cannot avoid activating orthographic, phonological, lemma, and semantic representations in their other languages. These other-language influences are evident in performance measures such as reaction time, eye movements, and brain potentials. Representations in a bilingual’s different languages continuously compete with each other for selection, suggesting that they are stored within compound systems. This is the case both for early simultaneous acquirers and adult second-language learners. With regard to mapping form onto meaning, less proficient second-language learners tend to rely on direct connections to L1 translations, while acquiring direct language-specific mappings from form to meaning requires a large amount of experience. Bilinguals rely on domain-general executive control mechanisms to manage the activation levels of their different languages.
This article discusses three basic paradigmatic models that Arabic lexicographers adopted over time: (I) al-Khaliil’s model in Kitaab al-ʕayn; (II) al-Jawharii’s model in alhaah; and (III) al-Bustaanii’s model in Kitaab muħiiṭ al-muħiiṭ. Though the three approaches are procedurally opposed, all account for the lexical data of Arabic, offer justifiable procedures of how to account for the complexity of the data, and are maximally different from each other. The article presents a biographical sketch of these selected lexicographers, followed by a discussion of the design and composition of their dictionaries and where they fit in the historical flow of Arabic linguistic activity of their time.
The lexicon is central to the concerns of disparate disciplines and has correspondingly elicited conflicting proposals about some of its foundational properties. Some suppose that word meanings and their associated concepts are largely universal, while others note that local cultural interests infiltrate every category in the lexicon. This chapter reviews research in two semantic domains—perception and the body—in order to illustrate crosslinguistic similarities and differences in semantic fields. Data is considered from a wide array of languages, especially those from small-scale indigenous communities which are often overlooked. In every lexical field we find considerable variation across cultures, raising the question of where this variation comes from. Is it the result of different ecological or environmental niches, cultural practices, or accidents of historical pasts? Current evidence suggests that diverse pressures differentially shape lexical fields.
Compound word formation is examined from the twin perspectives of comparative grammar and child language acquisition. Points of cross-linguistic variation addressed include the availability of bare-stem endocentric compounding as a “creative” process, head modifier order, the distribution of linking elements in Swedish and German compounds, the possibility of recursion, and the availability of synthetic compounding of the -ER (English dish washer) and bare-stem (French lave-vaisselle) types. Proposals discussed at length include Beard’s Generalization (which links head modifier order in compounds to the position of attributive adjectives), Snyder’s Compounding Parameter (linking syntactic availability of verb-particle constructions and adjectival resultatives to availability of creative endocentric compounding), and Gordon’s acquisitional studies of Kiparsky’s Generalization (concerning restrictions on regular plural-marking within compounds).
This chapter aims to answer questions generally relevant for the task of constructing a corpus that can serve as a sound empirical basis for the creation of dictionaries as well as for linguistic research. Starting from theoretical considerations of corpus design and representativeness, it also discusses practical issues, such as how the primary data in corpora can be enriched with other kinds of information, how raw data can be converted to corpora, how the necessary rights can be acquired, and in general, how to avoid possible pitfalls. In these considerations the construction of a corpus will be viewed primarily as a complex optimization task that should best be approached iteratively, for which typically no single optimal solution can be found, and in which costs are a crucial factor.
Monolingual dictionaries devote more time, money, and effort to the writing definitions than to anything else, but this does not translate into commensurate user benefits. Studies of dictionary use show that the main uses of monolingual dictionaries are for quick and superficial checks on spelling and approximate primary meaning, rather than for more elaborate and carefully constructed linguistic information and subtle sense distinctions as contained in most dictionary entries. This chapter surveys traditional approaches to definition in dictionaries from the eighteenth century to the present day, summarizes some of the most important discoveries by philosophers and anthropologists about the nature of word meaning during the twentieth century, and closes by asking how this is likely to affect dictionary writing in the future. Should lexicographers abandon the unachievable dream of defining word meaning in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, and look instead at the facts of words in use?
Compounds are contrasted in structure and meaning with affixations. It is shown how affixes may develop historically from productive compound patterns when a productive core constituent can no longer be associated with its independent form. Meaning extension and separation is a common occurrence in compounds. Recent psycholinguistic findings indicate that frequent constituents of non-transparent compounds have separate entries in the mental lexicon as bound variants of their free counterparts. The so-called “lexical affixes” of certain noun incorporating languages present interesting borderline cases, as they contain a mix of lexeme-like semantics with formal properties of affixes. They too may have arisen via a grammaticalization process from (bound) roots to formatives. Synthetic compounds are argued to be genuine compounds with derived transitive heads. Finally, complex conversion structures, analogies, blends, and back-formations are differentiated on the basis of their restricted interpretation from productive compounds.