Pius ten Hacken – författare

The question of how to determine the meaning of compounds was prominent in early generative morphology, but lost importance after the late 1970s. In the past decade, it has been revived by the emergence of a number of frameworks that are better suited to studying this question than earlier ones. In this book, three frameworks for studying the semantics of compounding are presented by their initiators: Jackendoff's Parallel Architecture, Lieber's theory of lexical semantics, and Štekauer's onomasiological theory. Common to these presentations is a focus on English noun-noun compounds. In the following chapters, these theories are then applied to different types of compounding (phrasal, A+N, neoclassical) and other languages (French, German, Swedish, Greek). Finally, a comparison highlights how each framework offers particular insight into the meaning of compounds. An exciting new contribution to the field, this book will be of interest to morphologists, semanticists and cognitive linguists.

Drawing on detailed case studies across a range of languages, including English, German, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, Polish, Czech, Russian, Lithuanian and Greek, this book examines the different factors that determine the outcome of the interaction between borrowing and word formation. Historically, borrowing has largely been studied from etymological and lexicographical perspectives and word formation has been included in morphology. However, this book focuses on their mutual influence and interaction. Bringing together a range of contributors, each chapter illustrates how borrowing and word formation are in competition as alternative naming processes, while also showing how they can influence each other. The case studies are framed by an introduction that describes the general background and a conclusion that summarises the main findings.

Drawing on detailed case studies across a range of languages, including English, German, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, Polish, Czech, Russian, Lithuanian and Greek, this book examines the different factors that determine the outcome of the interaction between borrowing and word formation.Historically, borrowing has largely been studied from etymological and lexicographical perspectives and word formation has been included in morphology. However, this book focuses on their mutual influence and interaction. Bringing together a range of contributors, this volume illustrates how borrowing and word formation are in competition as alternative naming processes, while also showing how they can influence each other. The case studies are framed by an introduction that describes the general background and a conclusion that summarises the main findings.

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.

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.