Onomasiological Approach to Word-Formation

There are two basic approaches to the study of word-formation: onomasiological and semasiological. The semasiological (from Greek sema ‘sign’) method, proceeding from form to meaning/concept, concentrates on the analysis of the already existing word-stock. The onomasiological (from Greek onoma ‘name’) method, which takes the opposite direction and studies the naming act, has long been relegated to the periphery of research in works on English word-formation. As noted by Dalton-Puffer (1997: 9), a survey of the literature on English word-formation might lead to the conclusion “that meaning-oriented approaches to word-formation are practically untilled soil”; however, as she adds, the picture changes if we widen our linguistic horizons, and encompass Slavic and Romance works. In a similar vein, Grzega (2002: 2) when analysing the few recent theoretical contributions in this field states that it is astonishing that there have been very few attempts “made to view word-formation as a forming process, as an active process, in other words: as an onomasiologically and cognitively relevant phenomenon.” No wonder: within the mainstream generative tradition, the naming-act perspective has been more or less ignored. But, as noted by L. Lipka (2002: ix), “voices have been raised over the last few years pleading for a reconsideration, or re-discovery, of onomasiology.” This effort, aimed at providing an alternative to the dominating approach to word-formation, has also benefited from the creditable activity of J. Grzega and A. Bammesberger, the editors of an on-line journal Onomasiology Online. Interestingly, the first comprehensive onomasiological theory of word-formation, developed by Czech linguist M. Dokulil, appeared as early as 1962; and even if J. Horecký (1999: 6) aptly states that this theory did not result in a change of paradigm it found a number of proponents in other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, for instance, in Slovakia (Horecký, Buzassyova, Furdik, Stekauer), Poland (Puzynina 1969, Grzegorczykowa 1979, Szymanek 1988, Waszakowa 1994), former USSR (Nes imenko 1963, 1968), and also Germany (Fleischer 1969, von Polenz 1973, Huke 1977).

[1]  P. Štekauer Beheading the Word? Please, Stop the Execution , 2000 .

[2]  Peter Koch,et al.  Frame and Contiguity: On the Cognitive Bases of Metonymy and Certain Types of Word Formation , 1999 .

[3]  Renata Grzegorczykowa Zarys słowotwórstwa polskiego : słowotwórstwo opisowe , 1982 .

[4]  Mieke Trommelen,et al.  Morphology and Modularity , 1988 .

[5]  Hans-Jörg Schmid,et al.  Words, lexemes, concepts : approaches to the lexicon : studies in honour of Leonhard Lipka , 1999 .

[6]  Travaux linguistiques de Prague , 1966 .

[7]  Robert E. Beard,et al.  Lexeme-morpheme base morphology : a general theory of inflection and word formation , 1996 .

[8]  Bohuslav Havránek,et al.  Tvoření slov v češtině , 1962 .

[9]  Peter Koch,et al.  Bedeutungswandel und Bezeichnungswandel : von der kognitiven Semasiologie zur kognitiven Onomasiologie , 2001 .

[10]  Marina Rakova Words and Concepts , 2003 .

[11]  H. Marchand Categories And Types Of Present Day English Word Formation , 1971 .

[12]  I. Whishaw,et al.  Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology , 1995 .

[13]  Andreas Blank,et al.  Historical Semantics and Cognition , 1999 .

[14]  Joachim Grzega,et al.  Bezeichnungswandel: Wie, Warum, Wozu? : ein Beitrag zur englischen und allgemeinen Onomasiologie , 2004 .

[15]  Rochelle Lieber,et al.  Handbook of Word-Formation , 2006 .

[16]  Robert E. Beard,et al.  Lexeme-morpheme base morphology , 1995 .

[17]  Th. Just,et al.  Festschrift zum 60. , 1940 .

[18]  A. Blank Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen , 1997 .

[19]  Richard Sproat 16. Bracketing Paradoxes, Cliticization and Other Topics: The Mapping between Syntactic and Phonological Structure , 1988 .

[20]  Dieter Kastovsky,et al.  Wortbildung und Semantik , 1982 .

[21]  Pavol Štekauer,et al.  A theory of conversion in English , 1996 .

[22]  H. Marchand A Set of Criteria for the establishing of derivational relationship between words unmarked by derivational morphemes , 1964, Indogermanische Forschungen.

[23]  Peter Koch,et al.  Kognitive romanische Onomasiologie und Semasiologie , 2003 .

[24]  Mark Aronoff,et al.  Word Formation in Generative Grammar , 1979 .

[25]  Pavol Štekauer,et al.  An onomasiological theory of English word-formation , 1998 .

[26]  Wolfgang U. Dressler,et al.  Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology , 1987 .

[27]  Werner Hüllen,et al.  English Dictionaries 800-1700: The Topical Tradition , 1999 .

[28]  Marjolijn Verspoor,et al.  Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics , 1999 .

[29]  Günter Radden,et al.  Metonymy in language and thought , 1999 .

[30]  Peter Koch,et al.  Bedeutungswandel und Bezeichnungswandel , 2001 .

[31]  Enslische Lexikologie. Einführung in Wortbildung und lexikalische Semantik. By Barbara Hansen, Klaus Hansen, Albrecht Neubert, and Manfred Schendtke. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie Leipzig. 1982. 246 , 1986 .

[32]  Rochelle Lieber,et al.  On the organization of the lexicon , 1981 .

[33]  D. Navon Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.