In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • An onomasiological theory of English word-formation by Pavol Štekauer
  • Iman Makeba Laversuch
An onomasiological theory of English word-formation. By Pavol Štekauer. (Studies in functional and structural linguistics 46.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998. Pp. 189.

The author begins with an introduction of his method which he describes as a ‘referent-conceptmeaning’ form approach to word formation. According to him, the advantages of this onomasiological approach have been sorely overlooked given the continuing dominance of American formalism in linguistics and the general reluctance which has resulted among generativists to incorporate semantics into their research. The author then goes on to state that his new approach offers generativists a way to view word formation as a completely independent linguistic component, one separate and completely distinct from syntax, which will make the traditional notions of affixation, compounding, and blending obsolete. His promises do not end there, however. He goes on to assert that his theory will clearly demonstrate how the processes underlying word formation are not only productive but ‘fully predictable’.

A challenging description of his theory then ensues, complete with the now seemingly obligatory maze of abbreviations: NUs, CCSs, ICSRs, ICSLs, SSs, with OT Is and OT IIs with Type IVs and Type Vs. The exact distinctions between the various types are sometimes rather confusingly vague and at other times somewhat forced. The chapters which follow this rather ambitious introduction demonstrate the method and application of this new approach.

Immediately, however, the author runs into many of the same problems which have confronted other theories taking such an approach. For example, precisely what is the role that semantics plays in this theory? How can it be predicted? How can variations be accounted for? To substantiate his efforts, the author makes frequent reference to other research which has confronted similar issues. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this research comes from the 1960s and 1970s. Very little attention is given to the most modern research which has been conducted in neurolinguistics and cognitive science. Nor is any real attention given to explaining precisely how the needs of the speech community, the primary motivator of word formation according to the author, actually motivate word formation. For example, in the analysis of nearly 50 terms which begin with the prefix be- (e.g. befoul, belate, bemoan, belittle, befriend), the author seems to abandon his own theory and use the terminology of the very traditional theories which he stated would no longer be necessary. The reader is left to ponder the question: If it looks like affixation, functions like affixation, and can be analyzed like affixation, why call it anything else?

And therein lies the weakness of this newest onomasiological research on word formation. Ultimately, its formulaic reductionism fails to offer new solutions to the bedeviling paradox of linguistic creativity and regularity. Thus, the author’s final wish, that his model will serve as a viable alternative to more traditional models, has been left largely unfulfilled. It is admittedly an interesting intellectual exercise, but it is still one which offers little real hope for new insights. Certainly onomasiology is a discipline which warrants more scientific attention, but the theory presented in this book does not make any substantial headway in this direction.

Iman Makeba Laversuch
Freiburg University
...

pdf

Share